omen, this started after I said that rational and religious are not mutually exclusive. A religious person can be rational. If you think otherwise then you're simply wrong, and if you want to talk about anything else that's your choice but it doesn't go with what I said, which is what prompted you to respond to me in the first place.

The equation can work for love, sex.. you know that drill.. I was once in love, had sex, (oh yes I did for you doubters) and some of the irrational thinking I used to use to just get laid could rival even the whackiest religious claims.... Of course now I merely fantasise about my magic sexual abilities, but......

Logged

You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER! Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

omen, this started after I said that rational and religious are not mutually exclusive. A religious person can be rational. If you think otherwise then you're simply wrong, and if you want to talk about anything else that's your choice but it doesn't go with what I said, which is what prompted you to respond to me in the first place.

I already stated that a person cannot be rational about religious claims, I explained why.

Do you have a counter argument to offer beyond whining because I unapologetically hold your feet to the fire?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

What you stated pertains to something very distinct to what I was talking about, omen. I never said anything about religious claims, I was talking in general, saying that religious and rational aren't mutually exclusive, and thus a religious person can be rational. I'm running out of ways to make the distinction clear, and I suspect that you're deliberately mixing up one thing with another.

But they are religious 24/7. And because of that irrationality clouding their judgement, they can never truly be rational. Sorry.

And what does it mean to be, as you put it, "truly" rational? What does that mean in practical terms in the real world? When are religious people rational and when are they not rational? When are they somewhat rational, when are they very rational, when are they barely rational?

What you stated pertains to something very distinct to what I was talking about, omen. I never said anything about religious claims, I was talking in general, saying that religious and rational aren't mutually exclusive

That's not what you responded too and every post in this thread has pertained to how religious belief informs irrationality. If anything you're responding by creating another red herring and changing the subject of the thread overall. If you wanted to make the semantic point that religious people can sometimes act rational, without regard to their religious beliefs, then you could have done so. ( you did not )

So are you agreeing me that a religious claim is inherently irrational?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I responded to one specific thing that one specific person said, omen. I wasn't responding to every post in the thread. Maybe that's where you got confused, even though it was pretty obvious. And yes, I was making the point that religious and rational aren't mutually exclusive. I stated that several times to make it clear to you that that's what I was on about. Either you genuinely got confused (although I can't think why anyone would), or this is for you an extention of your bitterness towards me which expressed itself so vividly in the ER. I recall you found yourself arguing with another member over my keyboard, which I found bizarre yet strangely engaging. I thought it best not to get involved, seeing as that was your "thing".

No, he means insanity. It is only because of rational people, that the world isn't as insane as it could be now. Be thankful for small mercy's. When the world was run by the religious, people were being killed in the millions.

I already stated that a person cannot be rational about religious claims, I explained why.

I don't see his posts disagreeing with yours. His original claim was, that most of the world is religious and the world isn't apart from the powers that be, insane.

People are irrational about all kinds of claims; e.g., the political parties they support, many of their phobias, etc, etc, etc.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

bertatberts, personally I'm quite cool if my doctor or surgeon is a christian. I prefer to let their credentials, reputation and experience do the talking, rather than their reading habits or how they like to spend their sunday mornings. And if a christian invents something useful, as many have, same again.

. And yes, I was making the point that religious and rational aren't mutually exclusive.

You didn't offer any clarification until you tried to change the goal post, which is still at fault.

Religion and rationality are mutually exclusive.

A religious claim is by necessity an irrational claim, insisting that a religious person makes claims that are not religious and those non-religious claims are not necessarily irrational is irrelevant because no one insinuated it here and you're not responding to anything anyone stated. Your argument is pointlessly semantic. Many of the issues and view points espoused by the religious in public forms are often informed by their religious beliefs and by the attribute of being religious are irrational.

So are you agreeing me that a religious claim is inherently irrational?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

bertatberts, personally I'm quite cool if my doctor or surgeon is a christian. I prefer to let their credentials, reputation and experience do the talking, rather than their reading habits or how they like to spend their sunday mornings. And if a christian invents something useful, as many have, same again.

You mean like you checked the credentials and reputation of Nassim Haramein?

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

In this case, I agree with kymer (to a point, at least). People are generally not very rational about things they strongly believe (whether religious or not), so it's accurate that a theist might not be rational about their religious beliefs. But it is incorrect to then conclude that because someone has those irrational beliefs, that they cannot be rational about other things. Just as it is equally incorrect to conclude that because someone has a generally rational viewpoint, that they cannot be highly irrational about some things. And if they believe those things strongly enough, they can be ridiculously stubborn about them, no matter what anyone else says. In fact, I'd go one step further and say that people almost always think they're being rational about those things they believe in. Doesn't mean they are, but try convincing them of that.

In short, theists almost certainly think they're being completely rational about the things they believe in, and that's why claims that they aren't generally bounce.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

But it is incorrect to then conclude that because someone has those irrational beliefs, that they cannot be rational about other things.

Find me the person arguing this.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Look, even jaimehlers has given you a negative darwin for talking about something which is irrelevant to what I said. And now you've even resorted to bringing Nassim Haramein into this. You've even gone to the trouble of posting a link to whatever, as if anyone is actually going to bother looking, when it's clear that that's utterly irrelevant. You have a grudge with me, I know this, but I'm not going to allow you to derail this thread with your grievances. I've been in the ER twice now. You really think I'm going to allow you to drive me back there?

My message to you is this : I respectfully disagree with you on certain topics (probably almost everything under the sun, in fact), and I respectfully ask you to try and wipe the slate clean with me. If you find yourself unable to do this, I suggest you simply avoid me. I have said it before in the ER and I will say it again, particularly to you omen. I will not allow myself to get embroiled in any row, with anybody, ever. I'm determined not to end up in ER for a third time, or to get banned. I have taken note on all the advice that has been given to me regarding my conduct, and you, omen, are not going to succeed in spoiling it for me.

A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

You made it pretty clear here that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic". In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

I prefer to let their credentials, reputation and experience do the talking,

I provided an example where you don't do this. I linked to the Nassem thread, where you expressly don't seem to exhibit the capacity to do that at all.

Quote

, and I respectfully ask you to try and wipe the slate clean with me.

I respectfully ask you to answer my questions directly. I never began smiting you until you began dodging.. again.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

You made it pretty clear

Oops, you clearly misquoted me. What were the first 3 words in that sentence.

Here allow me: A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

A religious claim.

Here have a smite for lying.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

You made it pretty clear here that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic". In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

Bold is mine. Here, you twisted Omen's words like a Christian apologist. Omen, in the quote you chose to respond to, was referring to knowledge of a religious claim. Nothing else.

I prefer to let their credentials, reputation and experience do the talking,

I provided an example where you don't do this. I linked to the Nassem thread, where you expressly don't seem to exhibit the capacity to do that at all.

Quote

, and I respectfully ask you to try and wipe the slate clean with me.

I respectfully ask you to answer my questions directly. I never began smiting you until you began dodging.. again.

He also wasn't talking about his doctor or surgeon in that thread. Which you left out here.

By the way, as long as we're on the subject of smites, he's gotten more than twice as many smites (seven) from you than from anyone else on the site. Your smites alone represent almost a quarter of his total; three of them are in this thread alone, and four of them are from today. I'm not saying that you're being excessive, but perhaps you might want to think about why you needed to smite him once each hour just in this thread, especially since nobody but you has seen anything wrong with his posts here.

A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

You made it pretty clear

Oops, you clearly misquoted me. What were the first 3 words in that sentence.

Here allow me: A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

A religious claim.

Here have a smite for lying.

Oh, indeed? You mean like how you only quoted five words from my response? And then, through some "logic" I don't even pretend to understand, assumed that I misquoted you without even seriously explaining yourself, and accused me of lying about it?

Your hypocrisy disgusts me.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

A religious claim necessarily presupposes a supernatural context which defies any rational means of 'knowing'. It by default excludes rational structured epistemology. The only way to have 'knowledge' of it would be through 'magic'.

You made it pretty clear here that you consider it impossible for a religious person to rationally gain knowledge except through "magic". In other words, the mere fact of having a religious belief prevents them from trying to understand the world on its own terms.

Bold is mine. Here, you twisted Omen's words like a Christian apologist. Omen, in the quote you chose to respond to, was referring to knowledge of a religious claim. Nothing else.

I most certainly did not twist his words. This is his statement; he made an assertion in it which was quite clear to me.

I'll grant that I might have misunderstood it, but I was not twisting his words. I am not the kind of person who does that, not to anyone, and I seriously resent being accused of such.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I most certainly did not twist his words. This is his statement; he made an assertion in it which was quite clear to me.

And it means something completely different when you bother to insert the first part of the sentence. I would smite you regardless if you did so intentionally, ignorance is no excuse.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Religion is a socially acceptable form of insanity. That needs to change.

I don't agree because most people are religious to some extent, and if religion was insanity then we would be living in an insane world, which, apart from those in power, we generally don't. Perhaps you mean fundamentalism.

Have you read a newspaper lately? We absolutely do live in an insane world. Most of the world's problems are the result of religion, and I don't just mean war. I mean most of the world's problems.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Your point being. People have been killed for many dogmatic and religious reasons, heck communism started in the bible.[1]but never because it was to reasonable. Name me a negative act committed in the actual name of atheism?

Quote from: Kymer

bertatberts, personally I'm quite cool if my doctor or surgeon is a christian. I prefer to let their credentials, reputation and experience do the talking, rather than their reading habits or how they like to spend their sunday mornings. And if a christian invents something useful, as many have, same again.

I'm the same, for minor everyday things colds fever etc.. But even my doctor will send me to someone else for a second opinion, if my illness is more serious.

The art of critical thought, means we have to use Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency to discern a thing. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=19211.0 When even one of those isn't used, our decisions, our answers are suspect, hence why a religious person becomes suspect, I've never said they can't be as rational as the next man. However we should trust no one and take nobody's word for it, and in the case of a religious person even more so.